Smash U is not on a 'new engine'. Change my mind.

[Browny]

I see people saying this daily. "[Character] benefits from the new engine" "I couldn't get into smash 4, but I'm really liking the new engine in Smash U".

But what engine are they talking about? A game engine is simply the program in which the game design takes place, it has literally nothing to do with the speed, hitstun or anything about the game. Nintendo could release Melee HD on the switch next year and it would be using the exact same 'engine' that made Smash U since all that matters is what software was used to bring all the assets/data together. That said, its certainly possible that Smash U was made on a new engine, but where is the proof? Is it in the credits, did Nintendo ever state anywhere what engine was used? Because I find the idea that an entire engine was built from scratch to make this game, when a perfectly good, fully functioning one was used to make Smash 4 is highly unlikely.

So why do we run with the assumption that it was built from scratch, when there is (seemingly) no evidence to prove it but a whole lot of reasons as to why Nintendo wouldn't? What proof have I missed?

 

[MalanoMan]

Uhh I don't think that opinion is the consensus opinion. When I talk about "[Character] benefits from ______" I specify "shorter hitstun" or "shorter landing lag" and similar terms that represent the differences between the games. I don't refer to Ultimate as using a new engine and I haven't heard many others say that either. I think some people might also be misspeaking. They may or may not actually be referring to the engine, but whatever words are being used may be general terms to describe the way the game is played.

 

[EGsmash]

When people say "game engine" in this context they aren't talking about the actual program used to build or design the game (like maybe Unreal or Havok), but the global set of rules which govern how the characters behave physically. If Melee HD was released with the same 'engine' as Ultimate, then it would play exactly like Ultimate. If it was released with its own 'engine', then it would play differently.

 

[staindgrey]

ITT: People confusing the engine used to make a game with general gameplay mechanics.

 

[Luigifan18]

I would be chiming in that anyone issuing a "change my mind" challenge is an arrogant prat who believes that their own subjective opinions are objective facts and will adamantly refuse to hear any statements which refute their beliefs... but this actually is a case of objective fact rather than subjective opinion, and Browny is actually correct, though I'm not sure if he has his facts straight and knows what he’s talking about or if he's got his facts mixed up and is right for the wrong reasons.

Super Smash Bros. Ultimate reuses the engine that was initially developed for Super Smash Bros. 4; some gameplay elements are different between the two/three titles, but the programming that governs the game functions is pretty much the same. In fact, the differences between SSBU and the two versions of SSB4 are quite minor compared to another trio of Nintendo games which piggybacked off of each other's engines — Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and Star Fox 64 all use the same engine, and those three games don't even belong to the same genre. (There were other games that also used the Super Mario 64 engine — The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask obviously being one of them, considering that it reuses Ocarina of Time's gameplay and assets — but I can't name any others. Also, I’m not counting any of the numerous romhacks of SM64 or OoT (has anybody actually romhacked Star Fox 64?).) Sakurai has confirmed that Ultimate reuses the Smash 4 engine, and if he had created a new engine from scratch (as he did when transitioning from Smash 64 to Melee, Melee to Brawl, and Brawl to Smash 4), the roster would only be a third of the size of what it is (with the implicit corrolary being that not only would "Everyone is Here!" been impossible, there would have been a big number of cuts). I’d look up the article, but I’m spending enough time on this post as is — I still have a lot of alerts to dig through.

So, I’ve established that Browny is correct about Smash Ultimate reusing the same engine that Smash 4 uses, and that he has brought up an actual factually-answerable objective question rather than the usual subjective "change my mind (you can't because I'm a stubborn prat who would rather rewrite reality than admit defeat)" nonsense. Where I'm confused is the actual definition of "game engine". OP seems to think that a game engine is the program used to develop a game, but I’m not sure if that's what a game engine is. I'm fairly certain that a game engine is actually the program used to run the game; I've seen quite a few games present themselves as "Powered by Unity" or "Powered by Unreal". Based on the wording, I would infer that Unity and Unreal are the programs serving as the backbone of the game's functions, rather than the programs used to develop the game. Now, I could be mistaken about the term having one definition or the other; it could very well be both (it would be very foolish to design a game without having the program you intend to use to run it on hand). Let's clear up what everyone means by "game engine" before we proceed further.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

You're absolutely right. The game engine was reused, but the context people are using it in refers to the physics of the game and how sprites behave. Obviously it's the incorrect use of the term.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think they mean the overall mechanics of the game are changed to help characters. It’s kind of semantics.

 

[Luigifan18]

You're absolutely right. The game engine was reused, but the context people are using it in refers to the physics of the game and how sprites behave. Obviously it's the incorrect use of the term.

Uh, who are you referring to, me or staindgrey ?

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Uh, who are you referring to, me or staindgrey ?

Both, sorry.

 

[Luigifan18]

Both, sorry.

Great, now I'm even more confused.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Great, now I'm even more confused.

As in I took both of your points in summarized it in two sentences. My bad. I should have been more clear.

 

[UltimateXsniper]

The engine is reused. It's the reason why we even have all these characters and stages in time. It makes sense because he's working with Bandai Namco again so the sources are already there instead of building from the ground up again like other titles. I believe in an article Sakurai stated that if they didn't reuse their resources, they'd get about half the characters in by now.

 

[Browny]

I would be chiming in that anyone issuing a "change my mind" challenge is an arrogant prat who believes that their own subjective opinions are objective facts and will adamantly refuse to hear any statements which refute their beliefs... but this actually is a case of objective fact rather than subjective opinion, and Browny is actually correct, though I'm not sure if he has his facts straight and knows what he’s talking about or if he's got his facts mixed up and is right for the wrong reasons.

Super Smash Bros. Ultimate reuses the engine that was initially developed for Super Smash Bros. 4; some gameplay elements are different between the two/three titles, but the programming that governs the game functions is pretty much the same. In fact, the differences between SSBU and the two versions of SSB4 are quite minor compared to another trio of Nintendo games which piggybacked off of each other's engines — Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and Star Fox 64 all use the same engine, and those three games don't even belong to the same genre. (There were other games that also used the Super Mario 64 engine — The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask obviously being one of them, considering that it reuses Ocarina of Time's gameplay and assets — but I can't name any others. Also, I’m not counting any of the numerous romhacks of SM64 or OoT (has anybody actually romhacked Star Fox 64?).) Sakurai has confirmed that Ultimate reuses the Smash 4 engine, and if he had created a new engine from scratch (as he did when transitioning from Smash 64 to Melee, Melee to Brawl, and Brawl to Smash 4), the roster would only be a third of the size of what it is (with the implicit corrolary being that not only would "Everyone is Here!" been impossible, there would have been a big number of cuts). I’d look up the article, but I’m spending enough time on this post as is — I still have a lot of alerts to dig through.

So, I’ve established that Browny is correct about Smash Ultimate reusing the same engine that Smash 4 uses, and that he has brought up an actual factually-answerable objective question rather than the usual subjective "change my mind (you can't because I'm a stubborn prat who would rather rewrite reality than admit defeat)" nonsense. Where I'm confused is the actual definition of "game engine". OP seems to think that a game engine is the program used to develop a game, but I’m not sure if that's what a game engine is. I'm fairly certain that a game engine is actually the program used to run the game; I've seen quite a few games present themselves as "Powered by Unity" or "Powered by Unreal". Based on the wording, I would infer that Unity and Unreal are the programs serving as the backbone of the game's functions, rather than the programs used to develop the game. Now, I could be mistaken about the term having one definition or the other; it could very well be both (it would be very foolish to design a game without having the program you intend to use to run it on hand). Let's clear up what everyone means by "game engine" before we proceed further.

I always believed a game 'engine' is like a compiler, but an over-arching compiler that compiles the results of other compilers... if you know what I mean.

A big thing I'm trying to determine though, is whether or not my statement about Melee HD being made on the switch would re-use the same 'engine' as melee, or whether it would use smash 4s (of which I am very, very convinced that ultimate is using) is true. My definition of an engine which I don't think is incorrect, would suggest that melee is so old that there is no chance it would be used in any modern game making, no matter what they are recreating. I don't care if they are recreating pong or pac-man, devs are going to use modern tools because they are the most efficient. Existing character models in HD would work better when imported into a modern engine, than trying to use an old engine to import HD models.

Because if that is true, then I feel like I have read far too many posts by far too many people who are fundamentally not understanding what an engine is. They are most definitely using it in the context of describing how fast melee is etc. Yes melee was made on a different engine but what engine was used is truly irrelevant, what matters is what numbers were used in hitstun multipliers, air speed stats etc.

I swear I'm detecting some extreme placebo effects when it comes to how some people view this game. I just don't get it. I play this and I'm like "this is a port of smash 4 with slightly higher movement speeds, more shieldstun and less hitstun" yet I've met people who are adamant that this game is not a port and is entirely different. Who cares if it is or isnt? All that matters is whether the game is good or not.

 

[Greave]

It's 100% a semantics issue. People are using the word inaccurately. We all understand what they mean anyway. The end.

 

[ZephyrZ]

I swear I'm detecting some extreme placebo effects when it comes to how some people view this game. I just don't get it. I play this and I'm like "this is a port of smash 4 with slightly higher movement speeds, more shieldstun and less hitstun" yet I've met people who are adamant that this game is not a port and is entirely different. Who cares if it is or isnt? All that matters is whether the game is good or not.

...Do you consider Majora's Mask a port of Ocarina of Time? Do you consider Kid Icarus a port of Metroid?

Smash 4 was definitely used as a base but Ultimates clearly been altered enough to be its own game.

 

[EGsmash]

Ok, here's a tangent to blow your minds:

Pokemon Red and Blue... Is it one game or two?

 

[ZephyrZ]

Ok, here's a tangent to blow your minds:

Pokemon Red and Blue... Is it one game or two?

They're two different versions of the same game. They're even called Pokemon Red Version and Pokemon Blue Version.

These days you don't see the word "version" included in the titles of modern Pokemon games but the idea is still there. For the sake of discussion and reviews they're pretty much always treated as the same games.